Re: Turtle Lake sold....again! (was Re: Haulover Beach

"Floyd Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <snip>
> >> Do you mean Musicfest? If so, it not only draws in money for
> >> the club (and, as members, we profit from that, obviously)
> >
> >You mean you get a check (in the amount of your share of the proceeds)?
> >Or you mean the profits go to the owner(s), who then decide how much, if any,
> >they will plow back into the club?
>
> He probably means that if the club doesn't go broke, they will have a
> place to go to...  That's easy to figure.  What's the problem for you?
>
> >> but more
> >> importantly it allows people who otherwise would never have visited a
> >> nudist facility to do so--and MANY of them find the lifestyle suits
> >> them and become part of our growing membership, which benefits
> >> everyone.
> >
> >Tell me:  what's the ratio of single males attending that event, vs. single 
> >females??
> >Unless it's equal.....WHICH I DOUBT.....then the event is simply creating
> >an even greater imbalance for the future.   Perhaps *you* don't mind such an
> >imbalance, but many nudists, esp. females,  do.
>
> Perhaps the single females *like* being the only single females?
> That seems more likely.

Perhaps, but the married females may not like the imbalance.
And the married males may not like it, espec. if the singles are not
on their best behavior.


>
> <snip>
> >> Because it was INTEGRAL to the definition of a non-profit I
> >> posted (and you obviously didn't read), actually.
> >>
> >> And I never denied that a non-profit organization of that
> >> nature existed--I argued that the kinds of claims you made about most
> >> clubs being such because they were "membership organizations" were
> >> inaccurate--and that if a non-profit DID exist it was required to
> >> adhere to certain laws and standards you claimed didn't apply.
> >
> >Again, in many/most states, a private membership club (that behaves as such), need
not
> >abide by civil rights laws.
>
> Did you ever post the law in this case?  I might have missed it.
>
> Here's some MI (since it's been mentioned) law that I found on the
> subject.
>
> The ***'s in the last sentence of 303 are mine.
>
> Please note that 'private clubs' listed in 301 (a) [i] through [iv]
> are NOT  exempted from the accomodations law.
>
> How would you differentiate a nudist club from a country club for
> instance?
>
> Remember, it can't be done by name only.   Please tell us where you
> find your definition being allowed.., if you come up with one.

It would be differentiated based on the concept of "expressive association".
The nudism is political expression.  "Family social nudism" would be an even
MORE specific form of political expression.

But I really need to read the Boy Scouts case in its entirety, and I probably won't
be able to do that for a few more days.  I'll post when I do.

BTW, the US Constitution would trump the Mich. law if nudism is
expressive association.

If the club acts more like a "business" than a private club for expressive association,
then, it probably wouldn't be exempt from the non-discrimination laws.
But, you know, we could debate this from now until forever, and really it all boils
down to what the Supreme Court says.


>
> Please, likewise, back up any of your 'legal' claims with statutes...

Statutes are irrelevant if they are unconstitutional.
I really don't want to address this anymore until I read the Boy Scouts case.
Stay tuned.